Đề tài Politeness strategies applied in making a bargain in English and Vietnamese

Table of contents

Abstract .i

Acknowledgements .ii

Table of contents .iii

List of tables . v

List of figures. vi

Abbreviations.vii

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

I. ration ale. 1

II. Aims of the study . 2

III. Scope of the study . 2

IV. Methodology. 3

V. Design of the study . 3

Part 2: Development

Chapter 1: Language and culture in communication . 4

1.1. Language and culture. 4

1. 2. Communication, communicative functions of language, cross-cultural communication 6

Chapter 2: Making bargain as a speech act . 8

1. Pragmatics, cross-cultural pragmatics . 8

2. Speech act . 9

2.1. Theory of speech acts . 9

2.2. Classification of speech acts . 10

2.3. Making bargain as a speech act . 11

Chapter 3: Politeness strategies in making bargain. 12

1. Theory of politeness . 12

1.1. Politeness and face. 12

1.2. Politeness principles . 13

1.3. Positive politeness and positive politeness strategies . 15

1.4. Negative politeness and negative politeness strategies. 17

2. Sociological factors: Social distance (D), Relative power (P), and Ranking of imposition (R)5

as politeness determinants . 22

3. Realization of strategies in making bargain . 23

Chapter 4: data collection, data analysis and discussion

1. Methodology . 27

1.1. Research instrument . 27

1.2. Procedure of data collection . 27

1.3. Procedure of data analysis . 28

2. data analysis and discussion . 29

2.1. Use of strategies as seen from informants’ parameters . 29

2.1.1. Politeness Strategies. 29

2.1.2. Major cross-cultural similarities and differences . 35

2.2. Use of strategies as seen from communicating partners’ parameters. 36

2.2.1. Politeness Strategies. 37

2.2.2. Major cross-cultural similarities and differences . 41

3. Concluding remarks . 43

Part 3: Conclusion

1. Overview of the findings . 44

1.1. Politeness strategies in making a bargain . 44

1.2. Effects of the communicating partners on informants in choosing politeness strategies

when making a bargain. 45

1.3. Informants’ status parameters. 46

2. Implications for cross- cultural communication. 46

3. IMPLICATIONS FOR ELT .47

3.1. Cross cultural negotiation in business field .47

3.2. Activities of sales and price negotiation for learners, particularly for those of

English for Business .49

References .63

Appendix 1: Vietnamese survey questionnaire.VIII

Appendix 2: English survey questionnaire.X

APPENDIX 3: Summary Table of utterances collected from Informants. XII

pdf81 trang | Chia sẻ: tranloan8899 | Ngày: 14/03/2018 | Lượt xem: 644 | Lượt tải: 0download
Bạn đang xem trước 20 trang tài liệu Đề tài Politeness strategies applied in making a bargain in English and Vietnamese, để xem tài liệu hoàn chỉnh bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
.78% 8.72% Positive politeness strategies+ Positive politeness strategies (PPS+PPS) 13..26% 0.00% Positive politeness strategies+ Verbal off-record (PPS+VOR) 18.03% 4.81% N eg a ti v e p o li te n es s S tr a te g ie s (N P S ) Single negative politeness strategies (SNPS) 16.57% 57.25% Negative politeness strategies+ Negative politeness strategies (NPS+NPS) 3.30% 15.38% Negative politeness strategies+ Verbal off-record (NPS+VOR) 5.01% 5..54% O R Verbal off-record (VOR) 10.05% 0.56% Table 2: Realization of strategies in making a bargain xxxiii xxxiii 1. Single positive politeness strategies (SPPS) All the one-utterance responses used at least one of the 17 positive politeness strategies suggested by Brown and Levinson (1990) and Nguyen Quang (2003). When making a bargain, SPPS is employed by the Vietnamese informants at the highest proportion (33.78%). Below are the common utterances of this kind. - Bu ®Ó cho con gi¸ 500 ngh×n nhÐ. (Accept 500,000VN§, dear Mom) - ChÞ ¬i, chÞ bít cho em mét chót ®i. (Lower the price a bit, sister) - B¸c ¬i, khyÕn m¹i cho ch¸u 20% nhÐ. (Give me 20% discount, dear) - Mµy, gi¶m cho b¹n tÝ. (Lower the price a bit, mate) - Ng-êi nhµ mµ bít n÷a ®i. (Lower the price, dear.) - The lowest price, mate/ guy 2. Positive politeness strategies + Positive politeness strategies (PPS+PPS) This is one of the strategies to which two-utterance responses are collected. When using PPS+PPS, buyer (S) also gives the reason/ promise, or seek agreement with the doing speech act of bargaining. This strategy is found only in the Vietnamese data. - Hµng xãm l¸ng giÒng víi nhau mµ. Em bít tÝ ®i. (We are good neighbors. Lower the price a bit, sister?) - B¹n bÌ víi nhau mµ. Mµy gi¶m cho b¹n mét Ýt. (We are old friends. Lower the price a bit, mate) - §iÖn tho¹i cò mµ ®¾t thÕ. 1 triÖu chó nhÐ. (It’s a used cell phone. Accept 1 million VND, dear) - VËy th× em tr¶ 300 ngh×n. Anh em m×nh cßn lÊy chç ®i l¹i. (Then, I’ll have it at 300,000VND. I would be your regular customer.) 3. Positive politeness strategies+ Verbal off-record (PPS+ VOR) Buyer (S) tries to make a bargain with a PP strategy, then followed with verbal off-record strategy. The second utterance is usually found with a reason. PPS+ VOR is employed by the Vietnamese at the high rate (18.03%) and rarely by the American (4.81%). - Mµy ¬i, 1 triÖu 2 nhÐ. §ît nµy tao ®ang kÑt tiÒn.(S2) (Accept 1.2 million VND, mate. I am short of money, at this time) - CËu bít cho m×nh tÝ ®i. §iÖn tho¹i nµy vá x-íc nhiÒu thÕ nµy mµ. (A bit lower, mate. It’s such a scratched cover!) - ChÞ g¸i gi¶m n÷a ®i, chÞ nãi th¸ch qu¸. C¸i nµy lµ ®å cò mµ.(S2,3) (Lower the price, sister. It is just the second hand one.) xxxiv xxxiv - CËu bít ®i. ë bªn hµng kia còng cã c¸i nµy, kh«ng ®-îc gi¸ th× m×nh ®i. (S3). (Lower the price, mate. There is another same one in the next stall, or else I’ll leave it) - Lower the price, mate. It looks like it’s very old and it might not work that well. 4. Single negative politeness strategies (SNPS) Another strategy found in one-utterance response is SNPS, which is commonly a direct bargaining. The Vietnamese make the largest use of this strategy in all the investigated situations accounting 16.57 %, whereas the American mostly make use of this strategy in the situation three, accounting for 57.25 %. The following examples are the typical ones in our collected data. - ChÞ xem lÊy c¸i ¸o nµy gi¸ 500 ngh×n ®-îc kh«ng? (Would you accept 500, 000 for this one?) - ChÞ gi¶m gi¸ thªm 10% ®-îc n÷a kh«ng? (Would you reduce the price by 10%?) - Gi¶m cho anh xuèng gi¸ gèc ®-îc kh«ng em? (Could I have the lowest price?) - B¸c cã thÓ gi¶m bít chót cho ch¸u kh«ng ¹? (Could you lower the price a bit?) - Anh cã thÓ b¸n ®óng gi¸ n÷a cho em kh«ng? (The right price, please) - Kh«ng biÕt chÞ cßn gi¶m gi¸ thªm cho em ®­îc n÷a kh«ng? (S1,2) (I don’t suppose there would be any chance of you giving me some more discount) 5. Negative politeness strategies+ Negative politeness strategies (NPS+NPS) NPS+ NPS is a combination of two utterances, the first of which is usually the quality hedges. They may stress buyer’s (S’s) commitment to the truth of his utterance or they may disclaim the assumption that the point of S assertion to the inform seller (H). The second utterance is usually a direct bargaining. - Thùc ra, em còng ch-a thÝch c¸i mµu ¸o nµy l¾m. ChÞ gi¶m bít ®i th× em mua. (S1) (To be honest, I don’t really like its color. Could you lower the price, then I’ll have it?) - Anh thÊy ®Êy, em thiÖn chÝ mua, anh còng thiÖn chÝ b¸n ®i. Anh ®Ó cho em gi¸ 1 triÖu ®-îc kh«ng anh? (S2) (As you know, I am quite willing to have this. Would you accept the price 1million VND?) - Thùc ra, c¸i nµy tr«ng còng kh«ng cßn míi. ChÞ ¬i, chÞ cã bít ®-îc thªm n÷a kh«ng? (S2) (Obviously, this cell phone looks like it’s old. Could you lower the price?) - ‚Are you sure this is as nice as you say it is? It looks like it’s very old. Can you lower the price a bit?‛ (S3) 6. Negative politeness strategies+ Verbal off-record (NPS+VOR) Buyer (S) goes on record with the first utterance in the form of NP then further an off- record utterance. As in PPS+VOR, the VOR is commonly a reason added when bargaining. xxxv xxxv - Em xem gi¶m ®-îc th× chÞ mua. QuÇy bªn c¹nh cã c¸i ®Ñp h¬n (S3) (Perhaps, you would lower the price a bit? There is better one in another shop) - Anh gi¶m gi¸ ®i, 500 ngh×n nhÐ. Gi¸ ®Êy ®¾t h¬n b¹n em mua 100 ngh×n. (S1) (Would you accept 500,000 VND. Your price is 100,000 higher than that of my friend could afford) - Is there a discount for paying cash? Is it likely to go on sale in the near future?(S1) 7. Verbal off-record (VOR) Brown and Levinson (1990: 211) clearly point out that ‚A communicative act is done off record if it is done in such a way that it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act. Thus if a speaker wants to do an FTA, but wants to avoid the responsibility for doing it, he can do it off record and leave it up to the addressee to decide how to interpret it‛ In our collected data, off record strategy used in making a bargain appears in both Vietnamese and American cultures. The data reveals that Vietnamese informants use this strategy more than the American do, mainly to bargain with their communicating partners as mother’s friend, neighbor or an old friend (10.05% vs 0.46%). The selected utterances of this type are as follows: - B¸c µ, chiÕc ¸o nµy ®Ñp qu¸ nh-ng tiÕc lµ nã h¬i ®¾t. (This is such a beautiful coat. What a pity! It is so expensive) (S1) - M×nh còng rÊt thÝch chiÕc Nokia nµy nh-ng gi¸ mµ nã rÎ h¬n mét chót. (I like it so much, but if only it were cheaper.) (S2) - B¸c ¬i, chiÕc nµy ®Ñp qu¸ nhØ, nh-ng ®¾t qu¸ ch¸u kh«ng ®ñ tiÒn mua råi. (It is such a nice one, but it is so expensive that I cannot afford). (S3) - Sao l©u råi kh«ng gÆp ®· quªn b¹n råi µ, b¸n ®¾t thÕ. (Don’t you remember me? It is so expensive.) (S1,2) - §å cò mµ cËu b¸n ®¾t nh- ®å míi vËy? (How could you sell the second hand one at the price of a new one?) (S3) - I compared prices available at different stores and the lowest price I had found was $15 (S1) xxxvi xxxvi Chapter 4: data collection, data analysis and discussion 1. Methodology 1.1. Research instrument This is a cross-cultural investigation into some noteworthy Vietnamese-American similarities and differences in making a bargain. Sufficient data for the study were collected from the two types of questionnaires: one in English and the other in Vietnamese consisting of real life situations in two places: in a shop and at flea market. Then they were delivered and collected directly or by email. Such data was then analyzed in the light of cross-cultural communication under the theories of politeness. The questionnaire includes two parts: - Part 1 is designed for general information about the informants - Part 2 is designed for American and Vietnamese people to find out how they would make a bargain in the following situations: + Situation 1: In the shop: How would you verbally make a bargain to buy a new coat. + Situation 2: In the cell phone shop: How would you verbally make a bargain to buy a second-hand cell phone. + Situation 3: In the flea market: How would you verbally make a bargain to buy an old French-styled lamp. The survey questionnaires were designed into two types: one in English and one in Vietnamese. The sequences of this conversation, making a bargain, include: the last utterance of the buyers to make a bargain and the next utterance is supposed that the seller will accept. 1.2. Procedure of data collection The procedure of collecting questionnaire data can be described in brief: Data were collected from two groups of informants. The first group who administered the questionnaires in Vietnamese consists of 50 Vietnamese. The second group includes 50 American English native speakers. Since some of the informants’ personal parameters are believed to be useful in analyzing their relationship in communication, informants were requested to provide the following parameters: - Age - Occupation - Gender - Area where they spent most of their time - Marital status - Acquisition of language(s) other than their mother tongue Below is the table which shows the number of informants with their status parameters. Status parameters Informants xxxvii xxxvii Vietnamese American Age Above 40 13 14 Below 40 37 36 Gender Male 22 23 Female 28 27 Marital status Married 26 21 Single 24 29 Occupation Techno-scientific 15 16 Social 35 34 Where they spent most of their time Rural 32 11 Urban 18 39 Acquisition of language(s) Without knowledge of foreign languages 16 17 With knowledge of foreign languages 34 33 Table 3: Distribution of informants with their status parameters 1.3. Procedure of data analysis In this section, cross-cultural similarities and differences between two cultures, Vietnamese and American ones, will be discussed basing on the detailed quantitative analysis of both Vietnamese and American data seen from informants’ parameters and communicating partner’s parameters. Analyzing and discussing data, the utterances of informants, buyers, are taken into consideration by the above mentioned parameters: age, gender, occupation, residence and acquisitions of foreign language(s) whereas the responses of the sellers are not targeted in this study. As stated in the part ‘scope of study’, the influence of D on the way people making a bargain is investigated in the given situation. Therefore, the informants’ communicating partners were intended to keep other parameters such as P and R neutral to put D in focus. The communicating partners are: - the informant’s mother’s friend - the informant’s old friend at high school - the informant’s neighbor - a stranger The two group of informants were requested to write their utterances when making a bargain to their communicating partners in each situation. The number of utterances conducted by 100 informants, both Vietnamese and American, is illustrated in Table 4. xxxviii xxxviii situations Communicating partners Numbers of utterances collected Vietnamese American Situation 1: making a bargain to buy a new coat at a shop. Mother’s friend 50 50 Old friend at high school 50 50 Neighbor 50 50 Stranger 50 50 Situation 2: making a bargain to buy a second- hand cell phone at the phone shop. Mother’s friend 50 50 Old friend at high school 50 50 Neighbor 50 50 Stranger 50 50 Situation 3: making a bargain to buy an old French-styled lamp at the flea market Mother’s friend 50 50 Old friend at high school 50 50 Neighbor 50 50 Stranger 50 50 Total: 600 600 Table 4: Number of utterances collected from survey questionnaire 2. data analysis and discussion 2.1. Use of strategies as seen from informants’ parameters 2.1.1. Politeness Strategies As can be seen in Table 3, Vietnamese informants use all the seven strategies in making a bargain to communicating partners, whereas American informants use six out of seven. Different parameters of the informants present the variety of distributions of these strategies hereafter. 1. Age (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters) STRA INF.P PPS NPS OR SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE Above 40 28.82% 15.18% 14.85% 17.35% 9.74% 8.35% 5.71 % Under 40 27.78% 8.16% 9.02% 19.72% 14.98% 15.89% 4.45% AM Above 40 12.64% 2.35% 64.42% 14.96% 4.97% 0.66% Under 40 13.72% 0.52% 65.51% 16.34% 3.34% 0.57% Table 5: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of age Vietnamese findings Informants above 40 and those under 40 made use of all seven strategies, of which SPPS ranked the first (28.82% and 27.78% respectively). Next comes SNPS: the older group employed xxxix xxxix 17.35% and the younger 19.72%. However, differences can be seen when PPS+PPS and PPS+VOR were more favored by the older group (15.18% and 8.16%, respectively), meanwhile NPS+NPS and NPS+VOR were preferred by the younger group (14.98% and 15.89%, respectively). Generally, the older tended to be more positive politeness-oriented (PPO), whereas the younger were negative politeness-oriented (NPO) American findings None of the informants, neither the older nor the younger group refered to PPS+PPS. Apart from that, the two groups showed relatively similar tendency towards the rest strategies. They made the largest proportion of using SNPS (64.42% for those above 40 and 65.51% for those under 40 years of age), the second largest use of NPS+NPS (14.96% and 16.34% respectively). They were both NPO. In brief, the Vietnamese, whether above or under 40, showed their preference in applying SPPS, while the American showed their interest in SNPS. It is noted that age did not affect the American in choosing strategies, whereas, it happened to the Vietnamese. Both the older and younger American informants were NPO and employed rather equivalent proportion of each strategy. Meanwhile, older Vietnamese informants were PPO and the younger NPO. 2. Gender (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters) STRA INF.P PPS NPS OR SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE Male 24.95% 2.83% 1.72% 47.80% 8.56% 6.96% 7.63% Female 36.67% 9.05% 4.97% 28.17% 9.29% 6.31% 5.54% AM Male 9.88% 0.06% 59.98% 23.33% 6.75% 0.00% Female 19.11% 6.97% 46.14% 20.37% 6.87% 0.54% Table 6: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of gender Vietnamese findings The two genders showed some differences in their choices of strategies to make a bargain. For males, SNPS accounted for the largest percentage of 47.80%, followed by SPPS, which made up 24.95%. For females, these two strategies took the reversed places. SPPS ranked the first at 36.67% and SNPS the second accounting for 28.17%. While males tended to be obviously NPO with 63.32% of NPS compared with 29.50% of PPS, females tended to be a bit PPO. Nevertheless, the disparity between PPS and NPS employed by females was not enormous: 50.69% vs 43.77% American findings It can be seen from the table 5, beside PPS+PPS, American males neither used PPS + VOR nor VOR. Though, American females employed VOR rather than male ones, they resorted to xl xl VOR at a rather low rate. Yet, the two sexes gave their top priority to SNPS (males: 59.98% vs females: 46.14%), the second largest proportion came to NPS+NPS (23.33% vs 20.37% respectively). Both groups were NPO. It is obviously to see that SNPS was the most commonly chosen by males in making a bargain from the two cultures and females from American as well. Vietnamese females, on the other hand, showed their widest interest in SPPS. Another point of contrast is that American males found it was no use to apply VOR strategies; however, their Vietnamese counterparts employed it at a rather high percentage. In a broad sense, Vietnamese males and the American of the two sexes were NPO, meanwhile Vietnamese females seemed to be more PPO. 3. Marital status (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters) STRA INF.P PPS NPS OR SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE Married 30.06% 12.26% 11.54% 27.08% 5.26% 7.03% 6.77% Single 26.42% 7.77% 3.14% 42.24% 8.15% 8.80% 3.48% AM Married 12.19% 4.03% 48.75% 25.85% 8.39% 0.79% Single 20.32% 3.74% 56.16% 18.03% 4.76% 0.00% Table 7: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of marital status Vietnamese findings Married people tended to be PPO, but the disparity between the proportions of SPPS and SNPS is not very great: 2.98%. SPPS, SNPS and PPS+PPS were the three most favored strategies, accounting for 30.06%, 27.08% and 12.26% respectively. In contrast with the married, the single were NPO (NPS: 59.19% compared with PPS: 37.33%). Single people were most interested in SNPS, making up 42.24%, followed by SPPS (26.42%). They made less use of VOR compared with the married: 3.48% vs 6.72%. American findings Obviously, both American married and single people were NPO. They employed a relatively high rate of NPS at 82.99% and 78.95% respectively. As found in the utterances of the two groups, SNPS was the most widely chosen found in the utterances of the two groups. Next came NPS+NPS on the part of the married group, constituting 25.85% and SPPS on the part of the single, accounting for 20.32%. The single also resorted to NPS+NPS at a rather high rate: 18.03% meanwhile they did not resort to VOR. Overall, Vietnamese single people were similar to the American single and married in the aspect that they all preferred SNPS and other NPS to others. Nonetheless, the Vietnamese single were less NPO than American. The American single did not resort to VOR, whereas the xli xli Vietnamese single used VOR at the higher percentage of 3.48%.Vietnamese married people, however, were PPO and they were the only group to apply a rather high proportion of VOR in making a bargain. 4. Occupation (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters) STRA INF.P PPS NPS OR SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE Tech-sci 17.87% 3.59% 4.35% 48.00% 13.14% 7.88% 5.16% Social 33.45% 7.69% 6.78% 30.34% 5.26% 7.28% 9.20% AM Tech-sci 8.56% 0.07% 67.77% 18.43% 5.17% 0.00% Social 16.15% 1.40% 52.06% 22.97% 7.28% 0.14% Table 8: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of occupation Vietnamese findings Both of the occupational groups made use of all the strategies, however the frequency of their choice of each strategy varies. For the techno-scientific group, SNPS was the most favorite, constituting a proportion of 48.00%. This group also preferred to use SPPS (17.87%) and NPS+NPS (13.14%). Although the social group was towards using SPPS with the highest percentage (33.45%), they used SNPS quite often (30.34%). Moreover, they were more in favor of VOR than the techno-scientific (9.20% compared to 5.16%). American findings The techno-scientific group did not resort three strategies (PPS+PPS, PPS+VOR and VOR) when bargaining, whereas the social did not take one strategy, PPS+PPS, into consideration. However, VOR was employed by the social at the very low proportion (0.14%). The first group employed SNPS at the maximum rate of 67.77%. The second most common strategy came to NPS+NPS, accounting for 18.43%. Likewise, the latter group, the social, was most inclined to SNPS (52.06%), followed by NPS+NPS (22.97%). In general, Vietnamese and American techno-scientific groups shared common preference in using NPS. The American group was, however, more NPO than the Vietnamese one. The American techno-scientific did not apply VOR. Another difference between two groups was that as many as three strategies were ignored in the American’s choice. With regard to social groups, there are two considerable differences between two cultures. First, the Vietnamese group used VOR more than the American. Second, while the American group was highly NPO, the Vietnamese one was relatively lower NPO. 5. Living area (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters) STRA PPS NPS OR xlii xlii INF.P SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE Rural 33.75% 8.54% 6.06% 29.90% 7.93% 7.46% 6.36% Urban 21.86% 5.43% 4.09% 43.38% 14.52% 4.81% 5.91% AM Rural 15.71% 0.95% 51.90% 24.76% 6.19% 0.49% Urban 10.12% 0.93% 60.74% 21.90% 6.31% 0.00% Table 9: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of living area Vietnamese findings SPPS was the most widely used by people from rural areas (33.75%) meanwhile, SNPS by people from urban areas (43.38%). However, country folks were towards PPS and tended to be a little bit PPO (48.35% of PPS compared to 45.29% of NPS). On the contrary, city dwellers were highly NPO (62.71% of NPS and 31.38% of PPS). As for off-record strategies, the country group employed VOR a bit higher than that of the city (6.36% and 5.91%). American findings The two groups shared a common tendency in choosing strategies to make a bargain, except for VOR, to which city dwellers did not incline to at all. Both countryside and urban dwellers gave their first priority to SNPS (51.90% and 60.74% respectively). Their second priority was given to NPS+NPS (24.76% and 21.90%), next was SPPS (15.71% and 10.12% respectively). Similar to American counterparts, Vietnamese city dwellers were more favored of NPS than PPS and were most concerned to SNPS. Another point to be noted is that Vietnamese country folks differed from their American counterparts in the tendency of being more positively polite and the American more negatively polite. 6. Knowledge of foreign languages (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters; NEFL= no European foreign languages; WEFL= with European foreign languages; NOFL= no Oriental foreign languages; WOFL= with Oriental foreign languages) STRA INF.P PPS NPS OR SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE NEFL 34.56% 10.86% 8.82% 24.40% 4.90% 3.71% 11.75% WEFL 21.19% 5.77% 4.75% 42.53% 10.08% 8.47% 7.21% AM NOFL 8.64% 0.29% 64.79% 19.65% 6.64% 0.00% WOFL 21.16% 9.25% 47.61% 17.09% 5.60% 0.28% Table 10: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of knowledge of FL xliii xliii Vietnamese findings Vietnamese informants without European foreign languages tended to use more PPS, of which SPPS accounted for the highest proportion of 34.56% and PPS+PPS was the second highest, at 10.86%. However, they were inclined to SNPS with a relatively large percentage of 24.40%, VOR with a proportion of 11.75%. Those with European foreign languages applied SNPS the most (42.53%), then SPPS at the rate of 21.19% and NPS+NPS at 10.08%. American findings The American without Oriental foreign languages mainly used NPS to their bargaining. These strategies constituted as much as 91.08% compared to 8.93% of PPS. Particularly, SNPS was listed the top priority (64.79%), next comes NPS+NPS (19.65%). Neither PPS+PPS nor VOR was used by this group. Although those knowing Oriental foreign languages were inclined to SPPS with a percentage of 21.16%, they were more favored of NPS with the use of SNPS at the maximum proportion of 47.61% and NPS+NPS with 17.09%. Basing on the data analyzed above, it is clearly revealed that knowledge of either European or Oriental foreign languages has influences on informants in their choice of strategies in bargaining. Vietnamese informants knowing European foreign languages, like the American without Oriental ones, tended to be NPO. The American with Oriental foreign languages acquisition and the Vietnamese with European ones shared a similar tendency in applying PPS. xliv xliv 2.1.2. Major cross-cultural similarities and differences a> Similarities There are 6 out of 7 listed strategies used by all the different groups of informants from both Vietnamese and American cultures. They were SPPS, PPS+VOR, SNPS, NPS+NPS, NPPS+VOR, and VOR. Both SNPS and SPPS were often given the top priority by all the groups. The younger groups (both Vietnamese and American) employed more NPS than PPS and were inclined to NPO. Similar to American males, Vietnamese males were NPO and SNPS was the first choice of their utterances. SNPS ranked the first strategy which Vietnamese and American single groups applied. They were both NPO, but the American group was more negatively polite than the Vietnamese.

Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:

  • pdf28_NguyenThiThuHuyen_BomonNgoaingu.pdf
Tài liệu liên quan